America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

I suppose the topic of impeachment of the current POTUS started a microsecond after it became clear he had won the Electoral College but lost the citizens' vote by around three million. It could have started earlier, but now it's looking so bad that removal from office is actually in the best interests of the nation, a matter of national security -- or so it seems.

Here's the guy who predicted a Trump win and also predicts his impeachment:

As Lichtman points out, a mathematical model can't be constructed, which he used to predict the EC win, because the event of impeachment hasn't occurred enough times in USA history. So, what do we watch and how long will it take -- if it indeed is to happen?

Lichtman says it may take a lot longer than a lot of citizens want, but will it be into Trump's second term as it was for Clinton and Nixon?

Why do you think President Trump will or will not be impeached?

When will impeachment happen to President Trump, it at all?

If impeachment does happen, what do you think President Trump and/or Congress (Senate) will do about it?

If impeachment does happen, how do you see this working out, positive and/or negative, for the nation and world?

If impeachment does not happen, how do you see this working out, positive and/or negative, for the nation and world?

It has become apparent that he will only be impeached if Democrats take control of the House. The bar for impeachment, oddly enough seems to be higher for Republicans than it has been in the past. (I say ââ‚¬Ĺ“oddlyââ‚¬ť with a bit of my tongue in my cheek because we all know why that really is - partisan hypocrisy.)

If impeachment does happen, what do you think President Trump and/or Congress (Senate) will do about it?

Again, this depends on who controls the Senate. While I think the Republicans in the Senate may be more inclined to remove him (there appears to be little love lost there), so long as they have control, I donââ‚¬â„˘t believe enough Republicans would vote for removal.

If impeachment does happen, how do you see this working out, positive and/or negative, for the nation and world?

Itââ‚¬â„˘ll be rough and the divide will cement itself in a way. Though, the size of the divide may not be as great as some would think. I think the rest of the world would see it as democracy in action.

If impeachment does not happen, how do you see this working out, positive and/or negative, for the nation and world?

This is a more difficult question for me to answer, I honestly donââ‚¬â„˘t know. Iââ‚¬â„˘d like to think this would right itself as it has in the past.

On a technical note, Iâ€™m sad to see that this site is not iPhone friendly when it comes to fonts.

It sometimes looks like impeachment will fizzle out to me as well, but then I look at what President Trump proposes, and I have renewed faith that our brand of a democratic republic has enough going for it that a bad POTUS will indeed be sent packing. By bad, I mean dangerous in the sense of letting a child play with a loaded pistol. Except the cartridges have nuclear tips. Nobody wins anything if the gun fires.

QUOTE

When will impeachment happen to President Trump, it at all?

It has become apparent that he will only be impeached if Democrats take control of the House. The bar for impeachment, oddly enough seems to be higher for Republicans than it has been in the past. (I say ââ‚¬Ĺ“oddlyââ‚¬ť with a bit of my tongue in my cheek because we all know why that really is - partisan hypocrisy.)

So sometime in the spring of 2019? I'm thinking it will be earlier, before the midterms in November. That's because the entire House is up for grabs, and not taking action on impeachment before then will ensure a Democratic House. It will also increase the possibility of a Democratic Senate, and that will pretty much mean resignation by Trump, pardon by Pence, and another Democrat in the White House come January of 2021.

But more so, it'll mark the end of the Republican Party as being at all useful for the powers behind the public officials. There's so much at risk that impeachment has to happen for party self-preservation.

I'm also thinking that the economy is about to take a nosedive before the midterms, which is very bad for incumbents. However, an economic downturn, even if it's somehow spun up to be Obama's and/or HRC's fault, won't be as influential as President Trump's daily exercises in absurdity.

QUOTE

If impeachment does happen, what do you think President Trump and/or Congress (Senate) will do about it?

Again, this depends on who controls the Senate. While I think the Republicans in the Senate may be more inclined to remove him (there appears to be little love lost there), so long as they have control, I donââ‚¬â„˘t believe enough Republicans would vote for removal.

I'm pretty certain that the vote will be a simple majority, and the Republicans don't have enough seats to ensure the vote. There will be defectors, and I'm thinking around 20 of them.

There will be those Senators who are seeking reelection in November, and I don't see the POTUS as being at all beneficial to their cause. However, sending Trump packing could very well be the thing that keeps the Senate Republican, and Pence would be, if not beneficial, then a whole lot less threatening.

He'd have to hold off on pardoning Trump until after the midterms, so that's another problem -- a Republican former POTUS spending slammer time during election season -- very bad optics there.

QUOTE

If impeachment does happen, how do you see this working out, positive and/or negative, for the nation and world?

Itââ‚¬â„˘ll be rough and the divide will cement itself in a way. Though, the size of the divide may not be as great as some would think. I think the rest of the world would see it as democracy in action.

I can hear Trump now, performing as a disgraced former POTUS, claiming that his impeachment and removal from office actually brought the country together. And for once, I'll give him credit for the brag.

The nation will likely fully understand why the Electoral College is a really bad idea, one born from a rather shaky alliance of former colonies and a distrust of a largely uneducated populace. I am of course thinking about conditions as they were in the 18th century. Today, things are so different as to be unimaginable during the Constitutional Convention. The time will have finally arrived for that piece of work to be eliminated via constitutional amendment.

The rest of the free world will be overjoyed that the USA, even with its strange form of government that allows minority presidents, recovered its balance after checking the power of the Executive. The world's little dictators will be bummed out, the poor dears.

QUOTE

If impeachment does not happen, how do you see this working out, positive and/or negative, for the nation and world?

This is a more difficult question for me to answer, I honestly donââ‚¬â„˘t know. Iââ‚¬â„˘d like to think this would right itself as it has in the past.

On a technical note, Iâ€™m sad to see that this site is not iPhone friendly when it comes to fonts.

Apple fonts don't work well on non-Apple platforms by design. It's been like this all along. We're all supposed to get sick of it and abandon Windows, Linux, and everything else in favor of Apple products. It's not tech but marketing.

Anyway, if President Trump is not impeached, I see the following possibilities in this nation:

New war(s), possibly nuclear

More authoritarian rule, possibly martial law

Economic despair as markets become overly controlled by a few oligarchs

And of course the end of the American experiment in self-rule.

The rest of the world will then decline into wars between neo-fascists and everyone else. If there's anything left, it'll be pretty dreadful.

But then I could be all wet and full of it. I just don't see a continuation of Trump as being anything but quintessentially FUBAR'd. Never liked the guy, but now I hold rational hatred for who he is and what he does.

Since so many also have this condition, my prediction is that President Trump will be trading in his long ties for an orange jumpsuit before the 2018 midterms. I'd probably give him a break and have him under house arrest for his remaining days on Earth, since there's zero chance of rehabilitation for his type of character. Keep him eating KFC and watching Fox, twittering his opinions while living out his miserable existence safely away from the halls of power. His dues will be paid in full, but not in this lifetime. And there's a certain amount of karmic forgiveness for being stupid.

AuthorMusician, though we have taken different paths to have the same worries, we do have the same concerns:

-more war-more authoritarian rule-economic despair-turmoil from end of current government-this effect being world wide

All of this is possible. Not certain. It may be degrees and not the entire enchilada. I think your intuition is guiding you well to have these tumultuous expectations.

But considering the problem with subjective thinking, I can not see how the impeachment of Trump can have any action upon the morass of bad culture which exists.

-We already are in too many wars. Zero would be a good number.-We already have authoritarian rule. This should be zero.-We already have economic insanity. This has resulted in half of the people in the United States making less than $27,000 a year.

Policy wise, Trump has continued on the path we have been upon for years.

The problems are much bigger than Trump. Everything was hunky dory until Trump? Does a delivery which ruffles many people's feathers cause all of this mess? I can not see how when a much more plausible explanation is evident.

If we need to get at the root of the problem, it is time to look in the mirror. Voters need to impeach themselves.

The problems are much bigger than Trump. Everything was hunky dory until Trump? Does a delivery which ruffles many people's feathers cause all of this mess? I can not see how when a much more plausible explanation is evident.

If we need to get at the root of the problem, it is time to look in the mirror. Voters need to impeach themselves.

No, everything was not hunky dory before Trump -- but not as bad either. Obama did not attempt to discredit the free press, hobble the FBI, play games with a paranoid nuclear power, defend neo-Nazis, kiss Putin's ring at the posterior end of the alimentary canal, and on and on. Nor did most other POTUS's, with Nixon coming close but not nearly as overtly tyrannical. His evil he at least did in the shadows and, I do believe, he realized how wrong it was.

I don't see not voting as a road to better days. It looks to me that no matter what Russia tries and no matter how hard Trump and crew work at it, the voters will send the Republican Party to the corner of the room with dunce caps in 2018. And I fully expect them to drop out of school, show us they will :grinning yoda:

But that's not all . . . I see the Democratic replacements being far harder to sway the oligarchs' ways. While it was popular for a while to equate Demos and Repubs, that trend ended the day Trump won the EC only. Here are some of the differences that have always existed:

Republicans worship money and those who have the most of it. Democrats will accept money from the oligarchs but do not sell their souls in the process, i.e., don't become their bitches. This is of course in general, since there are always exceptions, and some who call themselves Democrats are actually more like Republicans. The slang term is blue-dog Demos. An actual poly-sci term for them is conservative Democrats.

It will take a lot more effort from the oligarchs to sway other Democrats, since the blue dogs will likely head toward a remaking of a national conservative party. You know, after the Republican Party's crash, burn, and dissipation after November, 2018. As the blues lyric from Omar and the Howlers goes:

There's a wall, a wall of pride.Ten feet wide and twenty feet high.

Yep, and even the oligarchs couldn't bring it down.

Or Trump might escape impeachment and probable imprisonment; the efforts to suppress the vote and discredit the press might work; oligarchs might be able to buy themselves back into power very quickly; people might be a lot more stupid than I'm giving them credit for. But I seriously doubt that.

What I see unfurling here is a rhyme with Carter but in a screwy way. It took a real idiot like Trump to win the POTUS slot, one who scares the stuffing out of maybe two-thirds to four-fifths of the population, to show that voting does indeed matter. Then to bring it on home, off-season elections showed the truth in how a motivated electorate can bring about positive change. As Republican policies actually get implemented, as more events like the Florida school shooting make Republicans look not only foolish but entirely impotent, and as US citizens from Puerto Rico come to the states with their fresh experiences, well . . .

A few others who want Trump gone bigly time: Nearly all women, all blacks, most other brown-ish people, at least half his staff, all of the Republican Party officials, a good portion of rich people, and anyone in the arts. Even Christian fundamentalists are having buyer remorse. I hear that Andrew Jackson's portrait has turned its back, with Washington's displaying a full bird single-digit salute to the man who would be Caesar.

Whellll, that was cathartic. I must say that for all GWB's faults, not once did I hope he had to mingle with the yard's inmates. I felt a large amount of compassion for Nixon when he resigned on TV in that little New Mexico bar, fueled by a few brews. So this is the very first time that I wanted harm to come to pretty much anybody else.

What will make America great again is about to happen. And if it doesn't? I'll probably be interested in how that turns out, either on an intellectual or a survival level. Maybe both, sort of a hell-lite thing.

AuthorMusician, I've given you some of my opinions on this in another thread but I'll expand some here. I'll be reaching a point before too long where I won't be able to participate at AD for a liitle while, but I thought I'd share some newer information while I have the chance.

Why do you think President Trump will or will not be impeached?

He may be impeached if they focus on something other than Russia, it's becoming more clear every day that there was no Russia/Trump collusion. I'm not ruling it out 100% but the false media reports, the revelation that the Democrats were motivated, in part, by a propaganda dossier paid for by the Hillary campaign and DNC, the multiple charges made by the Muller team which have nothing to do with collusion, and most importantly the amount of time they've had to find something definitive are all things which point to the Russia/Trump collusion narrative being a false narrative.

As I hinted at, I think the best chance they have to get Trump with the current Russia investigation is if he lies when he answers questions for Muller. Trump doesn't always speak candidly and he speaks in haste, on a number of issues, especially if he feels insulted or is on a rant. They could use that against him effectively even if Trump didn't collude with Russia but if that happens to him without an underlying crime, it'll mean the Democrats got Trump by using a false narrative pushed by a number of corrupt individuals, which is a nasty way for them to get what they want and places a lot of the wrongdoing on their end. To talk more about the validity behind the argument that Trump colluded with Russia, here's Rod Rosenstein in regards to some of the more recent indictments...

"Not only did the indictment clearly say that no one in the Trump campaign was wittingly or knowingly involved with the Russians, it explains how the Russians used fake names and groups to hide their real identities. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein gave a press conference and drove home that point, stating that there was no evidence of any knowing involvement by the Trump campaign, as well as no evidence that this effort impacted the election. Indeed, Rosenstein stated that there is “no allegation in this indictment that any American had any knowledge” of the Russian effort.

For over a year, some of us have been questioning the weekly “bombshells” announced on cable programs of criminal Russian collusion. Indeed, for months I asked for someone to point to a crime of collusion in the criminal code or the criminal evidence to support a criminal indictment if such a related charge is made. With each week, experts have given breathless accounts of the circle of collusion tightening on the Trump campaign."

Even though these recent indictments from Muller and comments from Rosenstein present more doubt that Trump was involved in a collusion scheme, networks like CNN leave that part out or minimize that so they can milk the indictments for what they're worth. The way that some of them covered this was to point out that there's further evidence that Russia meddled and while that absolutely should be covered, it should be put in context, their reporting left out a lot.

In large part, they doubled down on things we already knew, most people already understand that Russia meddled in our elections. At this point, anyone who claims that Russia wasn't meddling in our elections hasn't been paying attention or isn't being honest. Trump has cast doubts on it before because he doesn't like that people are claiming that he only got elected because of what Russia did, but casting doubt on this wasn't helping him at all, it gave his critics talking points. Even though the Russia/Trump collusion narrative hasn't been based on solid or indisputable substantiation and corruption is being exposed with many of those who are going after him, the comments he often makes distracts from that. So those are the types of things the media wanted to emphasize the most but here's a more inclusive picture of what we learned and heard last week...

A. More evidence that Russia was trying to impact the 2016 elections and favored Trump to win. (which aren't new revelations)

B. Evidence which demonstrates that the Russians were meddling long before Trump announced he was running. That doesn't remove the possibility that Trump colluded with Russia but it certainly doesn't support that narrative, it supports a narrative that Russia was doing this for their own reasons, they wanted to cause trouble regardless of who was running.

C. Evidence that the Russians were behind anti-Trump rallies in the U.S. (causing chaos has been their primary goal)

D. "No American was a knowing participant in the illegal activity outlined in the indictment"

E. "There is no allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the outcome of the 2016 election."

The last two things having been said by Rod Rosenstein. I keep in mind that a lot of this is coming from an investigating team made up of mostly Democrats, some of whom want to tie Trump in with Russia. The Muller investigation along with the media and Democrats in office have shown countless times that they have participants who are doing more than seeking the truth, they want Trump to be guilty of this and some will do whatever is in their power to make this stick regardless of what they find and regardless of what it means for them.

If the evidence that's coming out on Russia\Trump collusion is still missing the mark with so many invested in making that connection, that's another thing that cast a lot of doubt on this and leads to questions on whether or not there's any "there there". Not only have they had a year and a half to look at records, they've questioned high ranking officials, and have gotten information on some of the Russians who were involved as well. They've been looking so hard for over a year and have, at times, bent or broken the rules to get them closer but still haven't found what they're looking for. I want to add that there are those who are trying to be fair when looking into Russia collusion or debating it, I just wish they'd call out the ones who aren't. (I'll explain more about that a couple paragraphs down).

When will impeachment happen to President Trump, it at all?

When looking at impeachment more broadly I'm not confident enough to make a bet with you here, (that it won't happen at all). I still have my doubts it will happen, but we'll see. As we discussed before, for those who are going after Trump, I think the best shot that they have to impeach him, is to focus on a sexual harassment charge. They'd still have a way to go to prove the accusers credible but there are certainly concerning things Trump has said and concerning things that have been said about him. The problem has often been that those going after Trump are themselves corrupt in many cases or sabotaging their own cause. For example, some women were paid to come out against Trump and now that this is known, it works against those who want Trump out office.

I understand many of the concerns being shared about Trump and do think there are those who simply want to know the truth. The chances of making progress on this increase when those who are legitimate reject the fibbers and corrupt partisans who want Trump out of office for political or personal reasons. To briefly talk about time frames, if impeachment happens, it wouldn't be this year, after that it's anybody's guess. Assuming we elect more Democrats in the midterms, if they have a majority to work with the chances of impeachment increase. Hopefully, if they aim for impeachment, they think it out and base it on something solid.

If impeachment does happen, what do you think President Trump and/or Congress (Senate) will do about it?

I'm not sure, so much that's happened has been unpredictable. Like many other things in the last couple years, there'll be a lot of drama, that much is certain. I also feel confident saying that Trump will fight the process whether or not he's guilty of the charges made. If the impeachment is in regards to Russia then Trump, Congress, and the Senate will probably continue to try to expose the corruption within the Muller investigation, Fusion GPS, and Hillary campaign since Hillary and her team played a role in pushing the Russia collusion narrative. That's their best defense but all of that needs to continue to be exposed regardless, both sides should be held to the same standard.

If impeachment does happen, how do you see this working out, positive and/or negative, for the nation and world?

If it's over something legit, justice will be served and we'll be better for it, but many of his opponents are likely to go down with him based on crimes and corruption on their end. One of the side effects of the Democrats focus on the Russia collusion narrative has been that they've exposed things they didn't intend to. Problems within the FBI, DOJ, the Hillary campaign, the media, etc. etc. Regardless, a Trump impeachment, (for any reason), would obviously have the effect of exciting and encouraging many who are on the left and in the Democratic party in particular while discouraging many people on the right or within the Republican party, but that will be short lived on both sides.

Let's say impeachment over something serious leads to the Republican party struggling and a new Democratic president eventually being elected as a result. Given the fact that Democrats have also had a lot of corruption on their end and have become increasingly partisan to the point where some of them can't be civil or honest, they wouldn't be able to stay on top for too long, (as with the Republican party). As long as both parties put the vast majority of positive attention on their base, people will rise up against that and the party in power will lose that power.

Though I have a slightly different take than Gray Seal, I echo his point that this has a lot more to do than with Trump alone. The world will continue on with the same types of problems with or without Trump given how deep those problems go. Personally, I have a complicated view on whether or not Trump himself is improving things or making them worse. I think it depends on what a person believes, making America great again is similar to Obama's "change" or "yes we can" slogans. Making America great again generally applies to those who are more on the right side of politics, while "yes we can" has meant yes we can pass things that those on the left side of politics can appreciate.

There's been too little in the way of middle ground and while holding a solid right or left stance on an issue is fine (I sometimes do), some people won't even acknowledge those who don't share their opinion, that's if they're not smeared or misrepresented. That's sad and goes to the root of many of our problems, will the removal of Trump change that? He certainly does say disrespectful things intentionally and frequently, while I like the assertiveness Trump has on certain issues I wouldn't miss the divisive rhetoric that often comes with it, a person can be assertive without causing pointless flame wars. That being said, things were steadily getting more hostile and divided long before he showed up so most of the responsibility for this situation comes back to us and a number of people in our government and media.

If impeachment does not happen, how do you see this working out, positive and/or negative, for the nation and world?

I'm sure people will still go on about why they think he should be impeached. Even if something like Russia collusion is proven false or we never come across something definitive on it, some will still believe it based, in some cases, on bias, raw emotion, or being misled by sources which have that problem. For others, if Trump does something wrong on topics A. and D. surely he's done wrong on topics B. C. and E. This has happened with others as well, sometimes when people find a person or party they don't like, they'll program themselves to notice only the flaws in that person rather than any positive traits. With Trump on overall performance, I believe the verdict is still out, I see positives and negatives in him thus far so I don't know how much of an impact he'll end up having by the end of this. Again, I think this is a partisan issue where some will be happy and others will be disappointed. As far as the World is concerned, many foreign nations don't like the U.S. anyway. Some are no doubt genuinely concerned about Trump and think he's making things worse but others aren't going to like him simply because he speaks out for a country they don't like, on that basis alone there will be those who respond negatively to him remaining in office.

In short, I understand and agree with many of your points on Trump but I think there's a lot of grey in this situation as well with everything that's happening.

My search engine failed me when I looked for the etymology and definition of "Twitterpated." Nonetheless, I expect that "The Donald" will likely be impeached long before the November Elections. I don't really believe that Republicans in Congress want to see him impeached next year by a Democratic majority in both houses. Sooner or later they will have to notice that riding the coattails of Donald's base will only get them trampled underfoot. Someone will rerun the "escalator tape" where Donald announced that because he "always said the economy runs better when Democrats are in charge, I have decided to run as a Republican." I am still at a total loss as to why Republicans allowed him onto their ticket...

When will impeachment happen to President Trump, it at all?

If I were able to place a wager, I would bet that he will admit to something (if only ignorance of American history) by perhaps sending a Tweet to President Pena of Mexico to "Remember the Alamo!" and tell him, "Mister Pena," to paraphrase Ronald Reagan, "Erect My Wall!"

If impeachment does happen, what do you think President Trump and/or Congress (Senate) will do about it?

The Senate will try him, and 2/3 of the Senate will be able to agree that they are not running for re-election this year. Ergo, they will have time to assuage the base, promise their continued allegiance to the NRA, raise funds and pay attention to the national polls. I do not think this President has made a great deal of friends in Congress and the Senate.

The ex-President will ask his attorneys to file an appeal with The Supreme Court. His attorneys will either determine that they might get paid for their time, or they will advise Donald Trump to charge unarmed into an Elementary school and sit down with a group of fifth graders and learn what the Constitution says are the roles of the President, the Vice President, the Senate, and the Congress.

If impeachment does happen, how do you see this working out, positive and/or negative, for the nation and world?

To quote a Republican President, "The world will little note, nor long remember..."

The nation will undergo a period of turbulence as it attempts to assess and correct its course. I doubt if Russia will declare war on The United States because we removed their puppet. The puppeteer, after all, likely expected to put words into the mouth of "President All Thumbs," but instead he has been Tweeting more than speaking. He has reminded me of a therapist who, decades ago, told my brother, "Generally speaking, people ignore incest and nepotism as long as you keep it in the family."

If impeachment does not happen, how do you see this working out, positive and/or negative, for the nation and world?

Donald Trump will wake up at 5:00 AM, sit on his throne, pick up his Twitter-maker, and threaten (insert "enemy of the moment") with a nuclear attack, and a world leader will take pre-emptive action in "self-defense." I began reading The Doomsday Machine by Daniel Ellsberg and got as far as page 2, where he spoke of a chart prepared for President Kennedy which outlined an expected 250-325 million people would die from a first strike nuclear attack. (U.S. population at the time was circa 180 million people.) Donald Trump wants more efficient and more numerous nuclear weapons on hand when he decides to toss the "football" around to prove that he is not afraid of anything...

Mueller has issued subpoenas of President Trump's businesses' paperwork, which might show a direct connection to the Russians in ways that would disallow a very high security clearance for anyone else. This could become a question on whether a possibly, even probably, compromised POTUS gets to stay in power.

This would be different from RMN's impeachment due to his documented attempts at obstructing justice and Bill Clinton's lying to a grand jury regarding his sexual escapade with Monica L. There's a clear danger of having a POTUS who has to defer to another country's desires, and so far it's been circumstantial evidence, such as wanting to lift sanctions on Russia for its invasion of Crimea. Then there's the inaction by the Executive on stopping Russian messing with our election processes, the alignment with Russian objectives in Syria, and more examples that don't come to mind right now. Let's just say that Trump's attitude toward Russia has been friendlier than any other POTUS, including the WWII leadership.

The natural question is why, and the obvious reasons have to do with money. There may come from this a legal requirement for financial disclosure before running for POTUS rather than simply an expectation that isn't codified.

In simple language, show us at the beginning that a candidate will actually pass an FBI background check for top dog secret clearance. I think it should have been required long ago, since the POTUS gets the most secret stuff and should demonstrate trustworthiness before ever starting a run for office.

I'm not entirely sure that personal tax forms should also be disclosed, but I see more reasons to do so than not. Even if the tax docs only show fudging of the rules, the electorate should know. It goes to basic character issues regarding honesty and responsibility.

Mueller has issued subpoenas of President Trump's businesses' paperwork, which might show a direct connection to the Russians in ways that would disallow a very high security clearance for anyone else. This could become a question on whether a possibly, even probably, compromised POTUS gets to stay in power.

I know I am likely off-topic here, but I could not locate the "Write your own Onion Story" thread...

We woke up this afternoon to Sarah Huckabee Sanders' "Friday night news dump." Paladin Elspeth was reading the crawl as she switched channels... The name "Stormy Daniels" apparently appeared in the crawl as Sarah was explaining that the Constitution does not allow opposition Senators to vote against Presidential Nominees, while on another channel, they were discussing Russian hits on former KGB agents in Britain.

Somehow my mind concatenated the stories and led me to ask if Stormy Daniels had been nominated to be the next ambassador to Great Britain...

We are signing nomination petitions, making small campaign contributions, and making commitments to be in campaign offices. In the diners where we eat breakfast, waitresses are not afraid to comment on Resident Trump's shortcomings for fear of losing a tip.

The Republican Party can sit back and say, "We have all the power." or they can look at the prospect of a couple of Democratic Wave elections leaving Democrats in charge when the 2020 Census is performed.

With the Supreme Court preparing to address Gerrymander voting districts, will a Representative of The Republican Party be willing to testify under oath before The Supreme Court that Connor Lamb should not have been able to defeat a Republican branded candidate? How else will they prevent Democrats from Gerrymandering the next decade's elections?

Mueller has issued subpoenas of President Trump's businesses' paperwork, which might show a direct connection to the Russians in ways that would disallow a very high security clearance for anyone else. This could become a question on whether a possibly, even probably, compromised POTUS gets to stay in power.

I know I am likely off-topic here, but I could not locate the "Write your own Onion Story" thread...

We woke up this afternoon to Sarah Huckabee Sanders' "Friday night news dump." Paladin Elspeth was reading the crawl as she switched channels... The name "Stormy Daniels" apparently appeared in the crawl as Sarah was explaining that the Constitution does not allow opposition Senators to vote against Presidential Nominees, while on another channel, they were discussing Russian hits on former KGB agents in Britain.

Somehow my mind concatenated the stories and led me to ask if Stormy Daniels had been nominated to be the next ambassador to Great Britain...

We are signing nomination petitions, making small campaign contributions, and making commitments to be in campaign offices. In the diners where we eat breakfast, waitresses are not afraid to comment on Resident Trump's shortcomings for fear of losing a tip.

The Republican Party can sit back and say, "We have all the power." or they can look at the prospect of a couple of Democratic Wave elections leaving Democrats in charge when the 2020 Census is performed.

With the Supreme Court preparing to address Gerrymander voting districts, will a Representative of The Republican Party be willing to testify under oath before The Supreme Court that Connor Lamb should not have been able to defeat a Republican branded candidate? How else will they prevent Democrats from Gerrymandering the next decade's elections?

Smart Republicans look deeper than that, I think they always need to look at how to improve and not take anything for granted but when I look at the Democratic party I have a hard time seeing where they've improved. I don't doubt that the Dems will continue to gain seats for a while but, by and large, they're still acting how they were before Trump was elected. With the exception of a few people like Conor Lamb who at least say they have some beliefs which aren't far left, the Democratic Party is still incredibly partisan, divisive, has extreme problems working with others, as we see with people like Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, most of the media, many leftist college professors, etc. etc.

I'm literally losing track of the sheer amount of lies, games, and lopsided focus too many people have on things which only help people who think or look like they do. For example, when I watch the press question Sarah Huckabee Sanders, nearly every question if not EVERY question is an anti-Trump or anti-conservative question. What I mean by that is that every question is asked in a fashion where if the answer were true or false it would make the President look horrible and they insinuate as they ask. They might as well come out and ask "Wouldn't it be horrible if the President were a child molester? Are you sure he isn't a child molester? Are you absolutely sure he isn't a child molester, what about what Fred told us?" Sounds ridiculous but the press isn't far from that.

Asking difficult questions is a good thing but there's so little in the way of balance from the press that it's hard to take their questions seriously, they literally act like children asking the same incriminating question 10 different ways desperately looking for anything they can take back to their network to play in a loop. The bias is obvious and reaches far beyond the press but even the reasonable members of the Democratic party are reluctant to say there's a problem, they put the focus elsewhere or suggest it would be bad not to challenge the President yet I haven't heard from anyone who says people shouldn't challenge the President or not be critical, it's a strawman argument.

Historically speaking the party of the President loses seats and this election is no exception, but what are Democrats doing other than being in the right place at the right time? Have they lowered the hateful or divisive rhetoric? Have they stopped pointing at others for being divisive or hateful when they haven't fixed that as a problem they have?

The frustration isn't in reference to you, neither you or Paladin Elspeth are divisive or disrespectful, but I don't see much other than business as usual when I look at the Democratic Party or the left as a whole. The Dems will claim victory in the midterms in all likelihood but they'll never maintain power if they don't make a fundamental change, a real change without the partisan gibberish. As is often true of the Republican party I think we'll stay stuck in this phase until people start coming out and talking to the opposition like they're human beings. Although I think the partisans on the left who are in the spotlight are causing a lot of damage, the ones who are more commonly silent or respectful on the left are the types who can change things for the better. The everyday folks who aren't paid millions of dollars to trash others are infinitely valuable but they need to stand up for what's right in a bigger way than fighting for policies they like. Republicans have often strayed as well, something is going on which has us at each other's throats.

To Update:

Authormusician, do you remember how I answered your following question...

If impeachment does happen, how do you see this working out, positive and/or negative, for the nation and world?

QUOTE

"If it's over something legit, justice will be served and we'll be better for it, but many of his opponents are likely to go down with him based on crimes and corruption on their end. One of the side effects of the Democrats focus on the Russia collusion narrative has been that they've exposed things they didn't intend to. Problems within the FBI, DOJ, the Hillary campaign, the media, etc. etc."

Andrew McCabe just got fired from the FBI, the spin on this will be that he was unjustly targeted while others won't even cover this or take it seriously but looking at what he actually did would be wise for those types because it's not going to end with him, not by a long shot. As I said, I don't disagree that there are reasons to be concerned about Trump and I think the investigation of him should continue, but what's happening is complicated and goes much deeper than Trump himself.

Look for a second special counsel to be initiated soon to further investigate the FBI and DOJ. In part, they'll be getting to the bottom of the information that's already been released which suggest Hillary Clinton wasn't thoroughly investigated and given a pass for crimes on her end.

It would be very stupid to fire a guy who looks like a political enemy two days before his retirement date, but that is exactly how President Trump handled McCabe. Maybe Trump wasn't aware of the bad timing -- or some such spin -- but this plays badly no matter who is looking on.

Screwing a guy out of his retirement income is an act of a vindictive prick, and no amount of spin will change this perception among your average working or retired voter. I suppose Trump still has supporters among those who don't work for a living and haven't retired, but I have my doubts that they'll stick around much longer. Just when you think the guy can't sink any lower, he removes all doubt by pulling off another outrageous stunt, then reinforces it through Twitter.

Bottom line though is that President Trump isn't very smart. For example, suing the porn star for breaking an NDA is the same as admitting guilt that the tryst did indeed happen. He's getting close to admitting he's a Russian lapdog by going after Mueller.

Take notice that HRC chose to appear before Congress and confront her accusers head-on, and she not only held her own but showed how ridiculous the accusations were. Republicans tried to nail her, what, eight times over -- and failed each time.

However, Mueller isn't at all like those Republican partisan hacks. He's looking for the truth, and that has President Trump acting like former President Nixon before the end of that administration, except wilder, crazier, and with way more fear. While it is true that Mueller is a registered Republican, he also seems to be a strong critical thinker who doesn't let partisanship get in the way of a sorely needed set of investigations and subsequent prosecutions.

Now Trump wants the death penalty for drug dealers. Disregarding the high probability that big pharma executives and medical doctors will be targets, this might be the POTUS acting out on his own fears of being nabbed as the traitor he maybe thinks he is and hung by the neck until dead in the public square. I know, pretty irrational, but that's how fear plays itself out in people like Trump. It's tween drama, and it fits.

If he had any sense at all, he'd know that he'd get pardoned by Pence, or whoever is left standing, and spend the rest of his days as Nixon did -- disgraced, sure, but not in Colorado's maximum security prison. He could even go back to reality TV, but the time for that is pretty much over.

Or maybe he knows that when the truth comes out, the only way for him is indeed max security slammer time. I'm allowing for that possibility.

Meanwhile, the Tru(mp)man Show continues on as if the TV ratings mean more than actual policy, as if Twitter is a great way to communicate, and as if the 2018 election season isn't Trump's last. They don't, it isn't, and C-YA -- wouldn't want to B-YA.

It would be very stupid to fire a guy who looks like a political enemy two days before his retirement date, but that is exactly how President Trump handled McCabe. Maybe Trump wasn't aware of the bad timing -- or some such spin -- but this plays badly no matter who is looking on.

Screwing a guy out of his retirement income is an act of a vindictive prick, and no amount of spin will change this perception among your average working or retired voter. I suppose Trump still has supporters among those who don't work for a living and haven't retired, but I have my doubts that they'll stick around much longer. Just when you think the guy can't sink any lower, he removes all doubt by pulling off another outrageous stunt, then reinforces it through Twitter.

I hope you're able to read this one...

Trump did not fire Andrew McCabe to the best of my knowledge. Jeff Sessions Fired McCabe based on the recommendation of the FBI and OIG which I'll address more below. More or less, Trump's role appears to have been that he was stating that Andrew McCabe was corrupt and that he thought he should be fired, but we don't know if Trump actually directly made that call himself. Not long ago he was talking about the U.S. having a Space Force, and as much as I like Space, that's a ridiculous idea, so it can be hard to tell when his more extreme comments are serious or will lead to action. You could say he has more motive to follow through on something like firing McCabe but a motive isn't a conviction.

Feel free to show me that there's proof that Trump did fire Andrew McCabe, I adjust when wrong pretty fast.

I think the most likely scenario based on current information is that while Jeff Sessions knows Trump is frustrated with him for moving slowly on a number of issues, it's not clear he made this decision simply because of what the President thinks or to ensure his job. I think Sessions looked at the OIG and FBI reports on McCabe and ultimately made the call based on that. In the back of his head, he may have believed the decision would put him on better ground with the President but did he make the call to fire McCabe based on that? That seems unlikely if you know a good bit about Jeff Sessions. People have wanted a second special council as well among other things and he's quite frequently frustrated Republicans by not acting on problems that are quite frankly, obvious, issues where taking action is well overdue.

I hear the left wing media organizations claiming Trump fired McCabe but even VOX (a very far left media organization) isn't presenting direct evidence and is at least admitting that the FBI and DOJ are playing a role. You have to consider that some pundits and politicians also say Trump is going to fire Mueller, or they insinuate that. Just to be clear there are at least some indicators that Trump may fire Mueller, but we won't know definitively until it's done or the investigation is over. The media did even worse than this by saying Hillary Clinton was going to win the election, many media pundits, celebrities, and politicians left no doubt that she'd win and they've acted similarly on other issues as well. I didn't think Hillary was going to lose either, to be honest, but the key difference is that I was willing to say I didn't know for sure.

What some of the bad actors in the media and our government are doing in many cases is simply making accusations based on suspicions and very recklessly they sometimes go as far as to develop broad stances based on those suspicions. Their suspicions and accusations are taking on a life of their own, where one set of them lead to another set, then another, and another. By the end of it, people come up with their own stories in a sense and speak of them as if they're indisputable or have already happened, and they can be very convincing while doing it until a person learns about conflicting information they're not sharing. Now and then they get one right, but I could do that by picking a number then rolling a dice on the floor. Extreme bias has made a fool out many pundits and politicians, and they've been relying on those with shared frustrations for ratings and support and are more than willing to take them down into the pit with them.

Here's Jess Sessions testimony on why he fired McCabe...

QUOTE

"After an extensive and fair investigation and according to Department of Justice procedure the Departments Office of the Inspector General (OIG) provided its report on allegations of misconduct by Andrew McCabe to the FBIs Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR).

The FBIs OPR then reviewed the report and underlying documents and issued a disciplinary proposal recommending the dismissal of Mr. McCabe. Both the OIG and FBI OPR reports concluded that Mr. McCabe had made an unauthorized disclosure to the news media and lacked candor, including under oath on multiple occasions.

The FBI expects every employee to adhere to the highest standards of honesty, integrity, and accountability. As the OPR proposal stated, all FBI employees know that lacking candor under oath results in dismissal and that our integrity is our brand.âââ€š¬ââ€ž˘

Pursuant to Department Order 1202, and based on the report of the Inspector General, the findings of the FBI Office of Professional Responsibility, and the recommendation of the Departments senior career official, I have terminated the employment of Andrew McCabe effective immediately."

To say Trump fired McCabe seems to me like it requires speculation that Jeff Sessions and a few others are lying, and unless proof can be shown I'll wait for the OIG report to be made public, it's sure to be interesting given individuals like Jeff Sessions and FBI director Christopher Wray would be risking their careers to fire a man over baseless claims. There have actually been problems with Andrew McCabe for some time, the claim that he lies A LOT is easily corroborated outside of the OIG report. When McCabe was asked when he learned that the Steele Dossier had been funded by the Hillary campaign and the DNC, he claimed he could not recall despite documents with McCabes own signature which established his knowledge of the dossiers financing.

But let's say I'm wrong on all of this and that Trump fired Andrew McCabe. I wouldn't be devastated by it, somebody should have done it a long time ago, it takes far too long for justice in cases like this and he needed to go. I think this is the tip of the iceberg, there will much more in the way of leftist and Anti Trumpers, who are on the attack, getting into trouble, with the likelihood of criminal charges. Mark my word that every step of the way Democrats in office and left-wing media organizations will do everything they can to redirect focus off of what these corrupt individuals are guilty of, but as this is happening people who need to face consequences will indeed face them regardless of what savvy members of our media or government want others to believe. When it comes down to it, I think many who are protecting corrupt or questionable Democrats by redirecting focus away from them are worried about what's developing, they believe these things hurt their progress on going after Trump, which it does but those who are at fault should have thought about that before.

As for Trump goes, perhaps something will surface on him as well. Again, I don't think it'll be collusion with Russia, but if anything illegal is found then he'd deserve what would be coming to him as well, but in all likelihood the Democrats have used a bogus narrative to keep pressure on him and continue investigating and when all is said and done, that won't be forgotten. I think we can agree that at a minimum, this is a mess in more ways than one, but I hope you're able to see that Democrats and Never-Trumpers are playing their role in the corruption we're seeing, stating that wouldn't mean you'd be giving Trump a pass.

QUOTE

Bottom line though is that President Trump isn't very smart. For example, suing the porn star for breaking an NDA is the same as admitting guilt that the tryst did indeed happen. He's getting close to admitting he's a Russian lapdog by going after Mueller.

Take notice that HRC chose to appear before Congress and confront her accusers head-on, and she not only held her own but showed how ridiculous the accusations were. Republicans tried to nail her, what, eight times over -- and failed each time.

However, Mueller isn't at all like those Republican partisan hacks. He's looking for the truth, and that has President Trump acting like former President Nixon before the end of that administration, except wilder, crazier, and with way more fear. While it is true that Mueller is a registered Republican, he also seems to be a strong critical thinker who doesn't let partisanship get in the way of a sorely needed set of investigations and subsequent prosecutions.

Now Trump wants the death penalty for drug dealers. Disregarding the high probability that big pharma executives and medical doctors will be targets, this might be the POTUS acting out on his own fears of being nabbed as the traitor he maybe thinks he is and hung by the neck until dead in the public square. I know, pretty irrational, but that's how fear plays itself out in people like Trump. It's tween drama, and it fits.

If he had any sense at all, he'd know that he'd get pardoned by Pence, or whoever is left standing, and spend the rest of his days as Nixon did -- disgraced, sure, but not in Colorado's maximum security prison. He could even go back to reality TV, but the time for that is pretty much over.

Or maybe he knows that when the truth comes out, the only way for him is indeed max security slammer time. I'm allowing for that possibility.

Meanwhile, the Tru(mp)man Show continues on as if the TV ratings mean more than actual policy, as if Twitter is a great way to communicate, and as if the 2018 election season isn't Trump's last. They don't, it isn't, and C-YA -- wouldn't want to B-YA.

A few things here, you're mentioning Stormy Danials and I wouldn't be surprised if Trump has been dishonest on that and on a number of other things. She may very well be trying to get into the spotlight, and the media is no doubt using this story to help their political agenda, but I'd far sooner believe this is a valid argument against Trump than something like "he colluded with Russia to win the election"

Where I part from a lot of Trump critics and leftist is when they conflate two different things or assume that if Trump is wrong in one area, he's probably wrong in other areas too, I'm right of center and still didn't like it when people did that to Obama. There's always a little grey in each of us, political or racial bias and prejudice often make that fact so blurry that people forget it.

As far as what you said about Robert Mueller....

QUOTE

"However, Mueller isn't at all like those Republican partisan hacks. He's looking for the truth, and that has President Trump acting like former President Nixon before the end of that administration, except wilder, crazier, and with way more fear. While it is true that Mueller is a registered Republican, he also seems to be a strong critical thinker who doesn't let partisanship get in the way of a sorely needed set of investigations and subsequent prosecutions."

I agree he strays from other Republicans a great deal but I don't say that for the reasons you do. Mueller has composed a very partisan investigating team...

The report says that his team only has one known Republican which leaves for the potential that there could be more, but that in combination with other information leaves little reason to doubt that his team is composed of mostly Democrats, some of whom have had an extreme bias or are corrupt. I say this because of the donations made by his investigating team where $62,043 went to Democrats and $2,750 to Republicans according to Politifact. Forgetting Peter Strzok who was already removed from his position in the Muller Probe, (who will probably face more consequences for his misconduct), on top of that Mueller hired Andrew Weissmann, he's one of the Democratic donors but more importantly he has very questionable ethical standards and has been recommended for dismissal in the past.....

QUOTE

"According to the Fifth Circuit, the prosecutors in United States v. Brown sent four Merrill Lynch executives to prison for a year on an indictment alleging conduct that was not criminal while the prosecutors plainly suppressed evidence favorable to the defense.

Mr. Weissmann was the Director of the Task Force for that case and its driving force. He was omnipresent in the courtroom, in the grand jury, and throughout the investigation. It took six years to uncover evidence that the prosecutors (Weissmann, Ruemmler, Friedrich & Hemann) had yellow-highlighted in full recognition that it was favorable to the defense. They and their successors in the Department repeatedly denied it existed, even though they were constitutionally, legally, and ethically bound to produce it. That evidence directly contradicted the testimony of their carefully-chosen witnesses, and the prosecutors repeated statements to the jury.

And they didn't just hide the favorable evidence. They put on cooperating witnesses to testify to the opposite of what their own evidence showed. At the same time, to insure no one could or would testify freely for the defense, they repeatedly threatened to indict anyone whose view of the facts differed from their own ââ‚¬ťincluding counsel for Merrill Lynch. And they named more than 100 people as unindicted co-conspirators. Their tactics were so egregious that even some guilty pleas had to be allowed to be withdrawn."

Does it really sound like Mueller is simply looking for the truth when most of his team favors Democrats, one of whom was removed from his position due to extreme conflicts of interest and misconduct, while another Andrew Weissmann (Muellers right-hand man), has horrible ethical standards? He flat out withheld positive information about defendants, information he denied existed, and which he was legally bound to produce, what he did ended up having real consequences. None of that smells right, it could all be a freakish coincidence that Mueller picked such a team, or it could be that Mueller and Trump do indeed have a conflict of interest as Trump has been claiming. I can't say I know that definitively but I do know that a number of things have been off about Mueller's team, and things that shouldn't be happening are happening especially if what people are wanting is a fair and objective investigation into Trump with the goal of discovering the truth.

Is that what you want to see, or is getting Trump out of office regardless of methods or merits fine so long as it's done?

Also, did the investigation into Nixon have as much corruption as the current investigation into Trump has? Was there a propaganda dossier which was anti-Nixon and paid for by his opponent in the election? (I'm talking something big, not an anti-Nixion article in a newspaper, but corruption that got those who were looking into Nixon demoted, fired, or faced with criminal charges.) These may be elements which you're not considering, things which will lead to a different outcome.

President Trump attacked Syria in response to that nation's use of chemical weapons. He didn't seek the approval of Congress, thereby ticking off that part of the government, and like President Bush, announced Mission Accomplished right after the initial mission was completed, meaning missiles were delivered to intended targets.

Seems the Rabid Right doesn't like this half-arsed attempt at war.

So there's zero political gain from this move, other than a possible distraction from the tightening domestic legal noose.

Still, might this action attract more voters to Trump's side and to Republicans seeking to serve in Congress this election season?

I doubt it. The voting public is pretty sick of these wars in the ME, and punishing Assad for using chemicals probably doesn't mean much on Main Street.

Whatever is motivating President Trump impresses me as a fool's errand: He warned Russia and Syria to get out of the way -- no leakers required -- and there's no real reason to bomb, via cruise missiles, Syria. I suppose it might be that Trump hates to see little kids suffering, and yet so many kids suffer all over the place with nary a peep from Trump that I can't buy it. This includes kids in the US, whether documented or not. He does like to blame Democrats for what Republicans do . . . doesn't count. Too much of an obvious tactic employed on your typical grade school playground.

His best move is to resign, the sooner the better for him and his family/friends. Ergo, he won't do it. He might become the only modern POTUS to end up in the clink.

I felt sorry for Nixon when he resigned. I might feel some of that if Trump resigns, but if he holds out until thrown in the pokey, zero sympathy. I will likely feel nothing.

His best move is to resign, the sooner the better for him and his family/friends. Ergo, he won't do it. He might become the only modern POTUS to end up in the clink.

I felt sorry for Nixon when he resigned. I might feel some of that if Trump resigns, but if he holds out until thrown in the pokey, zero sympathy. I will likely feel nothing.

I think that that the Trump investigation (this entire situation actually) has more in common with what happened to Bill Clinton than what happened with Nixon. For example, Ken Starr's investigation into Bill Clinton couldn't find the condemning information that they were looking for when looking into Whitewater. Looking into Whitewater was supposed to be the purpose of that investigation but it turned into looking into Clinton's sex life, which from what we know there were some serious problems with how Bill treated Women. Regardless, the Republicans were punished in the polls and voting booths for what the public viewed as overreach (in other words trying to find whatever they could to impeach the President for political purposes).

That's similar to the Mueller investigation although, from what I've seen, his investigation is even more partisan and corrupt because people within it are getting into trouble and others who are associated with this investigation are themselves being investigated and getting caught doing things they shouldn't be doing. Such as the Hillary campaign paying for a Russian sourced smear dossier full of wild allegations that nobody can prove, allegations which helped lead to the Muller investigation, it's such a mess AM.

I said before that looking into Trump's sex life is far more likely to reveal something condemning than looking into Trump/Russia collusion. Looking into that and perhaps looking into his tax returns but here's the problem, that should have been done from the start in a separate investigation. The Mueller investigation is now losing public support and if they don't do this another way they might not get what they want. There could be impeachment proceedings as a result of this investigation but I highly doubt that they'll get a 2/3 supermajority vote to make impeachment go all the way through resulting in getting Trump out of office.

When watching prior investigations into the Clintons it's obvious that the bar has been set very high for booting out a president or charging Hillary with anything, the Mueller probe has numerous ethical problems, problems with excessive bias, and considering we're in such a hyperpartisan atmosphere that'll likely mean that impeachment votes will be split along party lines unless they find something extremely bad. So far the Clintons have walked over some extremely shady activities, so it'd have to be something that's on another level from what they've done because even if the Dems take the House or Senate, they're extremely unlikely to get a 2/3 majority in either. If that's how things go down, I think that's when we'll start to see major backlash against Democrats, we're already seeing some of that. History is on their side for the midterms coming up later this year but I think they would gain far more seats without all of this mess. If they do take the House or Senate, I think their victory lap is likely to be short-lived with the Republicans catching their second wind before long. The polls have already tightened but Democrats have the high ground, for now.

So this could easily go down just like the investigation into Bill Clinton, it doesn't help that a substantial portion of the Democratic party didn't think Clinton should be impeached for what was happening in his personal life, despite the fact that he was fooling around in the White House, and lied about it several times, even under oath. I get the argument that a president's personal life is separate from his job performance in many respects, but that would be true of Trump as well. The hypocrisy on this is part of what's going to hurt the Democrats.

I still think Trump should be held accountable if they find something clearly wrong, (beyond speculation and subjective views that he's flat out destroying our country), but if they can find high crimes and misdemeanors on a level beyond what the Clintons have done then I'm with you. I just want the same treatment for both the Democrats and Republicans.

The survey finds that 47 percent of registered voters would definitely vote against a candidate who wanted to remove Trump from office, while 42 percent would definitely vote for a candidate who would make such a promise. Forty-seven percent of independent voters — whose opinions could be decisive — also say they would vote against candidates favoring impeachment.

So, believe the poll or not?

I would tend to believe it and take the safer road of keeping the issues local, which is usually a good bet on the midterms. But what I believe doesn't count -- it's what the candidates and their campaign strategists believe that's important.

Democratic leadership is notoriously bad at campaigns, remarkably good at governing in comparison to Republicans -- so goes the conventional wisdom that has developed over the decades.

Still, a lot of what's going bad in the Trump admin is probably not registering with voters, especially as spring/summer come to bear (vacations, activity plans for things like gardens, all sorts of alternative realities that are a lot more fun than politics). Usually the voting public doesn't pay attention until after Labor Day, then the deciding undecideds drive political wonks bonkers with their wishy-washy lack of decisions. And that is how conventional wisdom often falls flat. The game is way more chaotic than a lot of analysts want to believe.

There are some powerful game changers that can happen over the next six + months. President Trump might get spooked about prison time and resign like RMN did in 1974; war with Syria might become yet another winless ME adventure; President Trump might get credit for North and South Korea getting along (if that happens), similar to how RMN got credit for opening trade with China; domestic problems might overshadow both impeachment and foreign relations -- thinking deep recession like in 2008. There might even be assassinations going on down the road, more so than have already happened and perhaps on US soil.

The survey finds that 47 percent of registered voters would definitely vote against a candidate who wanted to remove Trump from office, while 42 percent would definitely vote for a candidate who would make such a promise. Forty-seven percent of independent voters — whose opinions could be decisive — also say they would vote against candidates favoring impeachment.

So, believe the poll or not?

I would tend to believe it and take the safer road of keeping the issues local, which is usually a good bet on the midterms. But what I believe doesn't count -- it's what the candidates and their campaign strategists believe that's important."

..........

"There are some powerful game changers that can happen over the next six + months. President Trump might get spooked about prison time and resign like RMN did in 1974; war with Syria might become yet another winless ME adventure; President Trump might get credit for North and South Korea getting along (if that happens), similar to how RMN got credit for opening trade with China; domestic problems might overshadow both impeachment and foreign relations -- thinking deep recession like in 2008. There might even be assassinations going on down the road, more so than have already happened and perhaps on US soil."

We don't agree on a lot in regards to politics but it seems that you consider possibilities. In regards to the poll that you showed, I think that fits with what I mentioned in my last post, the investigation into Bill Clinton became a situation where they weren't happy with what they found in relation to Whitewater so they started to look into other things that could be an impeachable offense. Obviously, they did eventually find some things wrong when looking into Clinton's sex life but it just came off as if the investigators and Republicans were trying to find anything they could to get him out of office. That was viewed as overreach by many in the public and therefore the Republicans were hurt in both the polls and at the voting booths.

I consider as well that Trump could have broken the law and I understand your frustration in regards to some of your points on him, I know Trump lies, has a bad record with women, makes slanderous comments, along with a number of other things, but I do feel that this could backfire on the Democrats if they're not careful. We've seen some of that already but the Democrats really could become the Republicans of the 1990's on this one.

It's the right thing to do to point out examples where those we disagree with do something right, not to mention that fact that people who are 100% negative on a person regardless of the situation are often not taken seriously and it creates a situation where it becomes hard to tell which criticisms are genuine and which ones come from a place of bias. Many in the public understand this and special councils and politicians certainly aren't free from being viewed as abusively bias or even corrupt if they take things too far. That doesn't mean we shouldn't hold the president accountable if he does something that's clearly wrong but those poll numbers you showed are very believable, I don't think most Americans want impeachment to be the primary focus of any political party. As you're saying, some of the things in the Trump administration are probably not registering with voters, but I think many Americans want politicians to go through the normal process of getting their message out, earning votes, and combating the opposition that way.

The Democrats may be in more trouble than they realize, they'll probably gain more seats later this year but I'm thinking the tide will turn well in time for the next presidential election if things keep going the way they are unless the Democrats change course or find something bad enough to score a knock out blow on the president. That's what they've been trying so hard for but it's wearing thin on the patience of an increasing number of Americans according to some of the polling I've looked into. Only time will tell though, a lot can happen between now and the next presidential election for sure.

If impeachment does not happen, how do you see this working out, positive and/or negative, for the nation and world?

Donald was lobbying yesterday to have Russia voted back into the G8 while his late arrival at breakfast allowed a discussion to develop about reducing the G7 to a G6. He thinks that he can go to Seoul and negotiate a treaty with North and South Korea without any need to prepare. (And he also thought that Canada had burned the White House during the War of 1812...)

As a 72-year-old American citizen, I am embarrassed that our President views Canada as an enemy. I recall learning in school that the border between the United States and Canada was the longest undefended international border in the world, and that was before Alaska was a State.

There is a rationale going through my head, that a quick solution to Donald Trump’s problems might be for him to seek political asylum in Canada.

Donald is viewing the Mueller investigation as a personal attack and is not seeing the larger picture that Donald Trump Jr. and Jared Kushner are also targets of that investigation.

If Donald Trump were to simply resign as President, I doubt very much that Mike Pence would issue any pardons to Donald and his family. Unlike Donald, Mike is a career politician. He would have his eye on the next Presidential election cycle and he would be aware of the fact that Gerald Ford was never elected to the office of President of The United States of America.

Donald Trump should be eligible to draw Social Security and likely, a pension as a retired U.S. President. He is past the customary ages that people in America retire, and perhaps he should consider that he does not have to work until the day he dies to have enough money to support his preferred lifestyle.

As a permanent resident of Canada seeking political asylum from The United States, he would likely need to hire a much better attorney than Michael Cohen or Rudy Giuliani to help him liquidate his assets in the United States (and likely manage his divorce.) He seems though, to be a wealthy man who pinches pennies the way my parents learned to [inch theirs during the Great Depression.

We're about five months away from Election Day 2018, which means people will start paying attention around Labor Day. Meanwhile, President Trump seems to be trying to pull a Nixon in foreign affairs. RMN opened up trade with China, and I see Trump heading in that direction. First though, he has to make it seem that Russia and NK are okay nations worth trading with.

There's not enough time to pull that off even if the POTUS were to discover the benefits of staying on track for more than a few moments. It's looking very bad with the taking down of minions who have songs to sing in the key of canary. They're the tweets that will really count.

So I'm thinking that the midterms will lay the foundation for a possible impeachment in 2019. However, I also am thinking that it's to the Demos' advantage to let DJT become a toothless and claw-less POTUS for the last two years of his term rather than letting Pence into the position. It could force Trump to pardon himself, which would knock some Republicans out of their complacent stances and possibly expose others for being fundamentally against democratic republics, in favor of absolute central power, and even wanting a theocracy like Iran has, just with Christian jargon instead of Muslim.

Then once President Trump becomes just a regular citizen, he could be tried for crimes in civil courts. Maybe.

Or it could all come to naught. But with no TEA party to speak of, it's pretty hard to see a Republican win this November. And there are plenty of local issues that have either come up or gotten worse due to Trump appointees and nominations, for example public education.

It's going from kissing the rings of tyrants and wanting his own damned ring too to crying children separated from their parents and a ripping sound of a political party tearing apart over its own lack of guts (the Demos/devils made us do it!) to trade wars inviting an early recession arrival.

It appears to be a scheme to actually get impeached, convicted, and tossed into rich people's prison because resigning would hurt too much -- or something like that.

I don't understand why Trump is doing this to himself and the unfortunate Republican Party. Perhaps there is no why about it, which leaves clinical insanity/irrationality.

Or it could be just boneheaded thinking -- he can get the wall if he forces hands; he can get something from a trade war (no idea what); he can get his own damned ring that everyone must kiss or literally die.

The Demos have to wait until next year to have any meaningful impact, and that could very well be the best course of action to take -- just let Trump be Trump and keep focusing on local issues for the midterms.

Basically, you don't have to point out a national shame when it's up in everyone's face. You don't have to allude to it or wink about it or use code language. Let it be what it truly is, and if the people want that, then . . . awe hell, let them have it. They deserve it.

On MSNBC, they have been reporting that his latest "leak" that he had an affair with a Playmate and his attorney recorded the conversation was a tape which the court had ruled represented attorney client privilege and ergo could only have been leaked to the press by Cohen or Trump.

I have no idea who benefits when we turn off the news and watch Doctor Who or the X-Files. I only know that 24/7 coverage of "The Donald" seems to be bad for our tempers, our mental health, and the world in general.

Donald's proposal that a federal law should be passed to force waitresses to surrender their tips to restaurant owners did not go over well with waitresses or customers.

Realistically, I have to believe that Donald Trump will be the first President to be removed by impeachment or the 25th amendment,. The only question will be which party will be in charge when it happens...

Polling still seems to represent the opinions of people who answer their land lines. I'd see what the newspapers have to say...but I don't know where I can find one outside of visiting the library...